Thanks, JoNova, for your continuing exposure of government deceit, e,g., the story of polar bears dying from AGW.

The good news this Christmas season is just this: The fountain of energy at the top of the chain of cause-and-effect for the entire Solar System [1] will once again reveal its total control of our fate at will, as it has in the past [2], quite independently of efforts to control information [3] to make society believe world leaders (the UN Agenda 21) control our destiny.

I’m hoping for a little more Global Warming next week when I take the family to the Victorian Surf Coast for the week. So far the forecast is for days mostly between 20-24C with rain on at least 3 days…

Maybe I should throw a few old car tyres on a large bonfire before Monday….

You are lucky if you live in a country where 20-24C is cool for the summer. This would be quite a good week in the summer for us in Britain. However, please don’t let that spoil your break.
Here it is a mild 10C, but very wet. No white Christmas forecast.

So many examples of self-denial from Lewandowsky in one spot, but space permitting, here is one:

Australia’s only national broadsheet, the Rupert Murdoch-owned The Australian… likening wind energy to pedophilia – yes, they really did say that.

Of course, the Australian never ‘said’ that.

They simply reported and quoted what some one else said, as newspapers have done since the printing press was invented.

Here is the quote he spun into his slippery strand of denial:

As a NSW sheep farmer fighting tooth and nail to stop a wind farm development near his beloved home told me the other day in trenchant style: “The wind-farm business is bloody well near a pedophile ring. They’re f . . king our families and knowingly doing so.”

For the last few years, my new passion has been rock climbing.
Like gliding, rock climbing is a great endeavour for people like myself who suffer from an unnatural fear of low places.
It also takes a lot less time than gliding, and you can do it wherever you are with only about 20 kg of gear.Most airlines can handle that, whereas few take sailplanes as check-in luggage.
.

That there is no-one in the cognitive psychology department of the UWA who could diagnose Lewandowsky and point out his failings and disconnection with reality is a reflection on the state of cognitive dissonance inflicting the UWA.

Mind you, he does remind me of an AFL coach. When asked about a particularly brutal piece of play that is likely to get one of his players rubbed out for several weeks, the standard reply from the coach is, “I actually didn’t see that incident”.

I know some of you think that I harp on maybe a little too much on Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS) and how I keep saying that it will never be achieved on the scale required, especially when you hear of newly announced breakthroughs in the media, and the plant in Queensland especially, which got a lot of air time on the ABC. You think that if they make breakthroughs like this, then it actually may even be doable.

I won’t repeat my reply here, as you can read it there.

I will however again try and impress upon you how outrageous the scale of something like this might be.

As I have mentioned, the CCS process itself consumes up to 40% of the electrical power being generated by the plant which might be utilising this process.

So, retrofitting the whole CO2 emitting power plant fleet in the US is the end aim, and they always make it sound so simple.

So let’s then look at that CCS power consumption for this whole of fleet process, pretending that they actually can make it work on the scale required. The process itself must work 24/7/365, so using any of the renewables is totally out of the question. Using new technology coal fired power is also out of the question because the CO2 needs to be captured from them as well, so that would be a self defeating purpose.

So, that leaves us with only one option, Nuclear Power Plants, and keep in mind this will not be extra power as it is only replacing what the CCS process itself consumes.

So then, what are we looking at?

Those CO2 emitting plants currently generate 2,771TWH, so just for the CCS process, which consumes up to 40% of the power being generated by the plant itself, we need to find 1,100TWH. Incidentally that 1,100TWH comes in at 27% of the total U.S. electrical power currently being delivered for consumption.

So,using the standard Industry calculation with the current Capacity Factor for Nuclear power, and with each new Nuke having a Nameplate Capacity of 2,000MW, (two reactors, each driving a 1,000MW generator) we are looking at 82 NEW nuclear power plants.

That’s 164 new reactors.

The U.S. currently has 104 Reactors.

Now can you see the scale of what is required.

Keep in mind that this is just for the process at electrical power plants.

Electrical power generation makes up around 35% of all CO2 emissions in the U.S.

Then you also need to add on the power required for the pumping stations and cooling stations along the routes of the thousands and thousands of miles of pipelines from each plant to the holes in the ground, then more power for pumping stations at those sites as well.

How easy now is it to say that existing dry oil and gas sites can take X amount of CO2, sites already barred in the original failed legislation, so why is it now currently a topic worth discussing.

The U.S. is currently spending $2 Billion+ each year on CCS, and will continue that outlay for the next ten years investigating the CCS process.

Incidentally, and I can’t find the link, but that plant in Queensland that is using this process, after all the mass media hubbub died down, a couple of days later buried in the Late Late News on ABC24, I heard that they are not burying the gas at the moment, and are still in the process of looking for sites for that purpose, so it’s not even for real. It’s just a very costly working demo on how to capture part of their CO2 emissions.

No, CCS is an absolute crock of bovine waste, and will never be achieved on the scale required.

It would be cheaper, and easier to just close down those CO2 emitting plants.

Prince Philip, when touring a research lab at UWA was being given information on what uses the technology could be put. The exec in the touring party gave a list, and eventually got to ccs. At which point Phil looks at him and goes, “You’re not one of those nutters are you?”.

So no, when even a 90+ royal can see that ccs is a bad idea, it pretty obviously is a bad idea.

That came out of the blue and had little to do with me, other than writing the original.

Val Majkus sent the link along to Roger Franklin at Quadrant, and he expressed some interest back to Val, who got me to contact him. We talked and he asked me questions and said he would pare the size down for Quadrant.

The exercise offered me a salutary lesson really.

You all understand how much of a perfectionist I attempt to be, so when I actually do write something, I’ve learned to aim it at an audience who may have little (real) understanding of what I’m writing about, and because of that, I have to explain everything like it is to first time readers so they get the whole picture, and the correct explanation.

So, sometimes, if it goes through a third party, I’m sometimes a little concerned that the full explanation might get, how shall I say this, lost in the translation.

However, the end result at Quadrant really surprised me, and just showed me the vast gap between what I attempt to do, and a real journalist, and here I mean a journalist who will actually try and understand, and then check it out for himself to get it right.

This happened here at Quadrant.

The end result has a it all there, and for the life of me, I don’t think it has lost anything from my original.

Yet, it is just a tad more than one third of the word total of my original.

That was the big, and very welcome surprise for me.

I just don’t know how they do it.

I only wish that there were more inquiring journalists like Roger around, especially at Auntie, people willing to find out and then understand what they are writing about, instead of just repeating what they are being fed.

I will say one thing however. It has never ceased to amaze me that no matter how dry the subject matter of electrical power generation really is, people really do want to know about it. That’s the thing I find amazing. Man, if I had that thirst, I’d have actually attempted to get a full EE degree. Too old now.

Thanks Tony.It won’t matter anyway as all your posts make sense and are written in easy to understand language.At any rate a couple of us climate realists have been underwhelmed by the lack of response from efforts to discuss MMGW on a Paranormal/afterlife Survival blog. (don’t ask), so no-one will check out your Qualifications LOL.

Tony,
The Quadrant article is indeed tight, but it’s one punch after another. Congrats.
There is a history of dissent with the AAAS. See for example http://science.org.au/fellows/memoirs/carey.html We used to have Sam carey lecture us a couple of times a year at company seminars and the like.
I tried to get some discourse going when Cory took over from Lambeck. There was no significant response to this communicatyion, or to later expansions of it.
………………….
GHS to AAS Aug 2010

Having worked with several of the above named authors and spent many hours/days of discussion with some, it is evident that the growth of important new scientific concepts often divides into a mainstream camp and a minority camp.

Here, I am asking are whether the AAS recognises this not uncommon pattern of progress; and notes that the minority view can evolve to the more accepted view.

For example, does the AAS have a set of guidelines to assist emerging talented scientists to manage the minority view?

An answer framed around “man-made climate change” would illuminate the Academy’s stance and indicate how it has learned from past experience. I could name several test examples on request.

Now, Ashby and backers trying to empower others to change the balance in the Australian Parliament? A direct attack on our democracy by a proven misuse of the courts? There is something worth being a little annoyed, maybe even outraged about??

Particularly since the evidence has been properly examined under challenge and ruled on by the Federal Court, rather than the “evidence” being accusations by some dude on the internet with an axe to grind.

Section 170 of the Criminal Code WA provides that “any person who, being required under a written law to give information to another person, knowingly gives information to the other person, that is false in a material particular is guilty of a crime and is liable to imprisonment for three years”.

Section 43 of the Associations Incorporations Act also makes it an offence for a person to lodge a document with the commissioner which the person knows is false or misleading in any material respect.

It is written by Terry O’Connor QC, who is a former head of Western Australia’s Anti-Corruption Commission.

Ashby and Brough are a disgrace. If Brough urged Ashby to snoop in Slipper’s diary and send him the contents, then he may well face charges (although my preferred course of action is for there to be no charges, but the libs do the right thing and drop his preselection).

But I think it was more a matter of the some of the various CEC’s being absorbed into One Nation (for a while), in the Pauline Hanson era, and the LaRouche influence coming via One Nation. There was a Larouche guy, Al Douglas, very active in Australia, back in those days.

When I set up the the Citizen’s Electoral Council movement there was no such thing as “the” CEC, as in a parent body. Each electorate established its own, local, independent CEC, usually with seed money I raised at speaking engagements in the district.

The idea was then for each CEC to to find a local person to run as an Independent, committed to only two purposes. First, to represent the WILL of their electorate, and second, to support Citizen’s Initiated Referenda and Recall. The whole idea was to get away from “party politics” and get back to the original idea of elected “representatives” actually representing the people who elect them.

The very first candidate to run as a CEC Independent, Trevor Perrett, comfortably won the the State seat of Kingaroy (Bjelke Petersen’s old seat) using CEC backing and money, and then immediately defected to the Nationals (he was actually a Nationals plant from Day One).

That was a body-blow from which the CEC movement never really recovered. After that it started to morph into something resembling a political party in search of a “leader”, and lo and behold, met Pauline Hanson coming the other way, looking for a party to back her.

By the time the CECs started forming, the League of Rights was pretty-much dead on its feet as ANY kind of influence, let alone political. As I understand the history, for decades Eric Butler WAS, to all intents and purpose, THE League of Rights. But by the time I got involved in politics he was a very old man. He had, in turn, anointed Jeremy Lee as his heir apparent, and Jeremy had for some years been the driving force who traveled the country, giving lectures.

Unfortunately for the League, Mel Gibson and I managed to convince Jeremy that the League were wrong on a lot of things, and ultimately Jeremy resigned as the Deputy Director or whatever his title was, leaving the League more or less leaderless and rudderless. It pretty-much fell apart after that.

Though I have no doubt there are still some active League die-hards out there, its days as a body of influence are long gone.

.
Or, of course, you could enter the alternative reality of Laurie Oakes, where I was the secret head of not only the League of Rights, but also the Ku Klux Klan, and a paid secret agent of the furtive, “extreme right wing” group, the LaRouche Movement.

The last one always struck me as particularly amusing, as in the States at the time, the LaRouche group was viewed as an “extreme left-wing” movement.

Or, of course, you could enter the alternative reality of Laurie Oakes, where I was the secret head of not only the League of Rights, but also the Ku Klux Klan, and a paid secret agent of the furtive, “extreme right wing” group, the LaRouche Movement.

Wow, who’s a been busy boy then??

Seems that the Australian League of Rights, or the “brand” at least has morphed yet again into something more hallelujah based and is still extant.

the LaRouche group was viewed as an “extreme left-wing” movement.

Seriously? I have to do some more reading on this lot, but from what i have read looks like they were/are so far left as to have looped back around.

about that “extreme left-wing” ==> “extreme right wing”…
Maybe the lower case “liberal” got lost in translation somewhere over the Pacific, and switched to upper case Liberal.
That still doesn’t explain how LaRouche could be described as left wing. In the USA nearly every candidate was to the Left of Romney. It is hardly a discriminator to be called “Left” over there.

Perhaps it’s because the real game is in the authoritarian axis while the left/right dichotomy is merely a sideshow to distract everyone from what the authoritarians are doing to them. The same as in Australia.

Don’t know why you were surprised at what you found, Cat. The League of Rights was always a quasi-religious activist organisation that existed to support the British-Israelite myth.

That’s the story that claims the mythical character Jesus Christ survived the Crucifixion, and ultimately moved with his wife – Mary Magdelene – and several kids, to what is now Great Britain. The core of British-Israelite / League of Rights thinking is that the Brits are the true biblical “God’s Chosen People”, the British Royal Family are the legitimate heirs to the title “Son of God”, and those who today call themselves “Jews” are in fact, ring-ins (which is about the only part of the myth with any solid, historical background).

I get funny emails from PJ Media. But being a bit fragile, I can’t bear to read them, as that simple action draws me into their world. And a scary world it is. Mind you, I’d feel the same if I got emails from Socialist Alliance.

Hi Memory Vault.
CEC sends me emails. Craig etc. You mentioned previously in one of your comments, quite some time back, that you started the CEC. I was just interested on how it arrived at what it is now. Thanks for the explanations of what happened.I thought you are too wise to have been taken in by Lyndon.

What then should be our response if a panel of international scientists made predictions, again based on all available evidence, that a catastrophic outcome is highly likely to occur unless we make some fundamental changes? You’d hope the answer is obvious!

Note also (our old “friend”) Glickson’s response in letters (p10) where he asserts that Stefan-Boltzmann applies to gas molecules. In fact; he’s recycling the gamut of CO2 makes climate hypothesis like SkS.

Not satisfied with that; he asserts that plant growth in a CO2-enriched atmosphere is limited by water… well it is… but it is no longer limited by too little CO2. So the plant grows to utlise available water. THere is vast literature available on especially cereal crops being more drought-resistant in a CO2-enriched environment.

Glickson also mentioned increased toxicity in some plants super-enriched atmospheres in excess of 1000 ppm (0.1%) to 10,000 ppm. The increased ethylene reduced seed production; which appears to be the extent of the toxicity. It doesn’t make the plants more toxic to consumers; just less productive. I’m wondering if Glickson made the effort to understand the abstract which he cited. (9. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11540191)

Someting different. In my earth science years there was much discussion about the Expanding Earth theory, a counter-intuitive idea to explain riddles in establishment geology. Prof S Warren Carey, Tasmania, a legend, was interested in the satellite measurement outcome, but recent reults are sadly long after his passing.

From the Abstract, “Here, we use
multiple precise geodetic data sets and a simultaneous
global estimation platform to determine that the ITRF2008
origin is consistent with the mean CM at the level of
0.5 mm yr−1, and the mean radius of the Earth is not changing
to within 1s measurement uncertainty of 0.2 mm yr−1.
Citation: Wu, X., X. Collilieux, Z. Altamimi, B. L. A. Vermeersen,
R. S. Gross, and I. Fukumori (2011), Accuracy of the International
Terrestrial Reference Frame origin and Earth expansion, Geophys.
Res. Lett., 38, L13304, doi:10.1029/2011GL047450.”

The figure and error for Earth radius is interesting when put into context of sea level changes. There are too many variables in that topic for me to go through them one by one here, but they do overlap with the recent posts on Fremantle and Hillary’s tide guages and with global ice melting claims. You have to read deeper, but on first blush Wu’s result of earth radius change under 0.2 mm per year does not mesh with several other derived measurements.

The paper is interesting as the most recent explanation I have seen for what is used as the frame of reference for measuring water and land level changes. I don’t know how it ties in with Jason and Topex late results, except to support them. In essence, very little change in the past few years.

For the last month I’ve been in Dubai – (working) and I’ve been interested in how a area that was once nomadic camel herders is now a thriving modern city with beautiful landscaped gardens, high rise buildings and fiber-optic telephone system. They recently celebrated 41 years of the United Arab Emirates. ( 7 tribes united)

BTW the local Emirates account for 900,000 – the rest are imported workers, businessmen etc with no residency rights.

They now have a modern electric train service, de-salinated water supply, multi-lane highways, irrigated dairy farms etc. All in 40 years! My client was a young boy when it all started, he’s since been educated both here and in Norway – he is currently finishing up his masters in Mechatronics. ( a cross between mechanical engineering and electronics)

We drove to Oman and back the other day and he showed us irrigation farms in the desert where the government supplies them pumped fresh water from de-salination plants. Food security is high on their agenda.

The roads are full of late model cars, Mercs, BMWs Toyotas etc and petrol costs AUD$47c/litre. The road to and from Oman was 4 lanes each way separated by a row of palm trees with flower gardens between them. The speed limit was 120 but they all traveled at 140.

It just goes to show what you can do with cheap unlimited electric power, something we could have if only we could break free of the Greenie, anti fossil fuel AGW noose we have around us!

Last year I analysed the plans of Saudi Arabia with regards to electricity production. It was quite long-winded so to avoid completely hogging today’s thread I will give you just the upshot.

The Saudis have already signed deals with Hyundai and Areva worth billions of dollars to build new nuclear power stations for domestic electricity production. The only logical reason for a country with enormous oil reserves to do this is because they know they are running out of oil and the only way to increase production for export is to stop using oil domestically for electricity. While much mirth has been made about academic Peak Oil predictions failing to eventuate, I would suggest taking a look at how the Saudis are voting with their wallets.

Years ago a mate of mine had a prawn trawler, based in Southport. On my way sailing from Sydney to the Whitsundays, I dropped in to visit, & was invited to dinner.

Diner was a nice steak, & he apologised for not offering prawns. He explained that with the cost of his new, bigger trawler, he needed every penny, & he was paid so much for his prawns, he could not afford to treat guests to them, thus it had to be steak.

Don’t you think that something similar may be behind an oil state wanting to use nuclear power, & flog their oil?

There is also the fact in 2008 that Saudi ARAMCO did not boost production enough to keep the price of oil down. I believe that’s because they couldn’t. You would perhaps theorise they decided to raise prices instead of keeping prices customers could better afford.

Considering their use of desalination, oil is almost as cheap as water for these people. The oil production is State controlled and internally they don’t have to pay export prices for it. In flying the flag for cornucopian optimism you are ignoring how much less cost-effective nuclear is than oil when oil is so cheap. They could have built reactors at any time in the last 30 years, so why now?
Basic economics, if production is unlimited at low cost then no economic decisions are needed.
The necessity of a new economic decision implies the reality of new production constraints.

Besides which, Hubbert’s curve is true of every oil deposit in the world, so it is only a matter of time. I reckon that time is 2020, but even the optimists will tell you it is around 2035.

Worrying about it doesn’t help, but neither does inventing false rationalisations for why nobody else should worry either.

actually both of you missed what I said. Their electricity is produced by GAS! they sell their oil which is cheaper to export than Gas.

Their petrol is relatively expensive compared to other oil states. They raised it recently and considering that most of the petrol is consumed by import residents they just offset it for the Emirati locals by raising their salaries.

I don’t understand what is wrong with the Saudi buying a huge airplane. It’s his money–unless some greedy government decides to redistribute wealth by their own means. It creates jobs and keeps the manufacturer in business. Very rich people are how average people can afford luxuries in the future. I think it’s wonderful.

Oh good, I was hoping there’d be an Unthreaded as I’ve accumulated several news stories during the week.
They are all in some way related to “not letting a good civilisation go to waste”.

—-

Firstly for those who say “conspiracy theories” are just kooky nonsense, I would remind you that we have several hundred employees paid by the taxpayer to spend most of their time devising and researching conspiracy theories. Perhaps you’ve heard of them? They’re called the Australian Federal Police. What a bunch of conspiracy theorists! You see how you have been propagandised to dismiss anything labelled as a conspiracy theory without thinking about it any further? Well if you want to invent a good conspiracy theory, you might like to have a guess as to why the label “conspiracy theory” has been poisoned. Sailor charged for stealing guns from Navy.
That’s a link to recent case of a genuine “conspiracy”, described as such by the police, not by the cement media or the blogosphere. It’s only a small single case, but it breaks the propaganda on the label. “Conspiracy theory” ought not have any derisory connotations to it at all.

Now that your propaganda programming has been temporarily disrupted (it will return, it’s strong like that) it’s time to bring in evidence of another conspiracy, this time to pervert the course of justice….

For several years now information released under FOIA has been available to the public which proves certain irregularities and withholding of information in the case of Schapelle Corby. It looks a lot like a conspiracy within two departments of Government, the AFP and aviation security, to suppress evidence that would lead to the unravelling of a drug-running operation carried out by a handful of corrupt members of the police and customs. The theory was that the drugs found in her bag were not meant to go to Indonesia, they were just supposed to be smuggled from Sydney (where Corby got on the plane) to Brisbane (where her international flight began) but somebody in Brisbane stuffed up and didn’t get the drugs out of the bag.
The AFP knew about the smuggling activities a year before Corby was arrested, yet oddly it never factored into any consular assistance or helpful advice to Ms Corby’s defence counsel.

This week the Customs half of the cartel has been exposed.Customs officers suspected in airport smuggling ring
It is at least 15 officers under investigation, a wide range of drugs are involved, and yet throughout all this reportage by the ABC there is NO mention of the obvious link with Chapelle Corby’s case. That’s because the ABC themselves have a track record of smearing Corby and sabotaging her case.
That’s also because information already available about the Corby case would point to delicate handling and evasive responses in that case by even ministerial level figures, with PM John Howard playing a tangential role in shaping public opinion on the case, that’s how high it goes.
Much easier to blame it all on a handful of goons on the ground, which is what this Customs case will be.
The show must go on.

Allegedly she flew to Bali with 4.5 kilos of Pot in her boogie board bag…

There was 4.5 kilos of pot in her boogie board bag. I’m no expert in marijuana, but it seems that 4.5kg is vastly more than could possibly be “consumed” by all her friends in a week. If Wikipedia can be believed, that is around 45,000 dollars’ worth of pot. It is certainly a drug-dealer sized quantity in that bag – a bag which she had written her full name and address on. What drug dealer would be so stupid? The drugs were moving from a high value market to a low value market. What drug dealer would be so stupid?

Somebody else put the pot there – the same somebody who was able to move the bag onto the plane bypassing the automated scanning conveyor belt and thus ensuring Corby’s boogie board bag was the ONLY piece of luggage with no scanning record in the luggage scanning system at a time when all outgoing luggage to Indonesia was required to be scanned. Corby could not have arranged for that scanning to be avoided whilst sitting comfortably in the departure lounge. No matter how corrupt the Indonesian police may be, they could not have arranged that irregularity either. It’s either an honest mistake by a Sydney handler and a monumental co-incidence for the world’s most inept drug dealer, or else it’s an inside job. There’s only one drug dealer that can arrange that; the federal drug dealers.

With any luck they will be the same federal drug dealers convicted by the current investigation. Because if it could happen to Corby, it could happen to any of us.

If the government had any decency they would be telling Indonesia to annul the conviction and bring Corby home for Christmas.

Everyone knows that “the Police”in Bali run the drugs.Importing Grass from a country where it is expensive to a country where it is cheap and run by the cops is not very bright.It was known at the time that drugs were shipping in and out of Sydney and who was doing it.Corby was a victim of somebodies incompetence not drug trafficking.

One has to wonder what has changed because this whole thing was talked about at the time.The media knew about the drugs going through our airports.As far as I know was never mentioned at her trial, The whole thing didn’t add up, missing CCTV tapes from Brisbane and all.

No conspiracy here, but it’s just another one of those bizarre co-incidences that in the week of the Sandy Hook Newtown USA school shooting that an inquest into a shooting in Sydney last year has just released information at the same time.NSW police ‘justified’ in shooting at man
This is what happens when you give guns to people and don’t train them on how to use it.
I’m talking about the police.
When you have a country in which people are permitted under license to carry a gun, you have to train police to not go around provoking people into using it. By eyewitness accounts the police did not adequately identify themselves as police to Mr Elkass, whilst at the same time “running” towards his ute. This would look like an attack by unknown assailants to anybody, and yet Mr Elkass is dead because he used his gun for the only honourable purpose a gun could ever have – the defence of one’s life and property.
How often would this kind of event happen if the gun restrictions and buybacks of 1996 has never happened? I dare say the police would be better trained on dealing with a potentially armed public, at the very least to prevent officers from being unnecessarily harmed.

Excellent idea. I have noticed here in the US making drugs illegal and confiscating any found really cut back on drug use. Overnight, addicts stopped trying to find drugs and just accepted that they were not allowed to have drugs. Worked for prescription drugs, too–though with your logic, I can see we should have outlawed ALL narcotics. After all, people take them for pain and then get hooked. No narcotics=less addicts, right?
Let’s see what else we can learn from your logic:
Less fattening food = less fat people
Less alcohol = less alcoholics
Less glue = less glue sniffing
No cell phones = no texting while driving
Speed monitors on cars = no speeding
Monitoring of energy usage = no one using more than their fair share
What a world it would be.

Here’s my theory.
Alexander Downer danced the Macarena, then he got a high-level job at the U.N. after leaving parliament.
Now Rudd has danced to Gangnam Style, so he will get a high-level job at the U.N. within 18 months of today.
That’s assuming he doesn’t challenge for PM and win in 2013.

Oddly, this has only just started to become apparent in the last two to three weeks. I’ve been watching scuttlebutt from people in the know and they’re all beginning to say that 15 years might be the absolute tops for life span.

Note also the rapidly decaying Capacity Factor with age.

The blurb at the release of the original proposal has all their calculations on 38% CF, and I’ll be damned if I can find out why that 38% figure always comes up, but it always works out at that 38%. I can’t find anything concrete on why it is used, but doing the Maths, (and that is an obscure task let me tell you, because they are very cagy not to release up front actual data, other than hiding it away by quoting the always obscure X number of homes) always works out to 38%.

Then, once up and running, it barely manages 30% sometimes as high as 33%.

Now it seems that CF could actually decay to around 10% to 15% after barely 10 years, and at 15 years it’s not economically viable to keep them running.

If anyone wishes to ask questions about my paper, or if you believe you have an alternative explanation for the Venus surface temperature, please post your question or response below this post as I wish to keep all discussion on the one thread.

Perhaps someone could enlighten me. You’ll all recall the Gergis et al paper that was withdrawn from publication after Steve McIntyre pointed out a data processing error back in June. Surely they must have fixed up the problem by now and we should be able to see the results of their endeavours. This was research paid for by the Australian tax payer was it not? Wouldn’t the terms of the various grants require the results to be published? It may be that the results are not what the authors had expected (hoped for?) but that’s no excuse for not publishing.

Question: What real-world meaning does “average” have? What does taking “x” number of data points, adding them together and then dividing by “x” actually show us? There are literally millions of combinations of numbers that yield the same average. For climate, if the poles dropped to -70C and the Amazon rose a significant number of degrees, the average temperature changes. Likewise, if the ice melts in the Arctic regions and the Amazon starts freezing, the average changes. If everything warms up 1 or two degrees a year, the average temperature changes. All the changes can lead to the same average change (as in scenario one raises it 2 degrees, so does scenario 2 and 3). Yet the changes would cause very, very different problems for humans. How does knowing only that ONE number tell us anything?
At least with median and mode, you have some idea of where the data actually lies (though admittedly not much). Please explain why all of these statistical analysis are supposed to mean something significant. (Is there a “p” coefficient involved somewhere? How was it calculated?)
If anyone can explain why this questionable statistic has been the end-all in climate change, please help me understand. Thanks.

Don’t look now, they’re watching. Wait till it’s safe before you check this out. You weren’t supposed to notice that hole in their reasoning. Really! And you would be wise to not let it get out that you’re on to them.

Roy–not to worry. I read the conspiracy sites too so I look like I’m not reliable!

Joe: I understand that the statistic “average” is related to, often meaningless, and newspapers love it However, why does the science community use this? What is the justification for the use of “average” in the first place? That’s what I am not understanding.

Roy–not to worry. I read the conspiracy sites too so I look like I’m not reliable!

Touché!

Well it’s nice to poke a little fun at the problem but it’s really quite serious. The meaning of numbers escapes even those who should know better. I have an alarm clock that also displays inside and outside temperature. It shows me either degrees C or F, my choice, to one decimal place. It also projects the outside temperature on the ceiling at night without the decimal place but they cleverly round to the nearest degree.

Nice stuff, right? Great precision and all that?

Now for the catch — the accuracy spec for both sensors is +- 2 whole degrees. Of what possible use is the 10ths of a degree it shows me? Why bother to round?

Who is designing this stuff? An engineer ought to know better. So I’m left with the almost certain guess that marketers are driving the features.

Measurement illiteracy (if that’s the right word) is so bad that if I mention the mean to some people they don’t recognize that it means average.

The arithmetic mean of minimum and maximum temperatures isn’t a reliable indicator of the day’s radiative capacity to space. Either extreme may be for only a few minutes or for many hours of the day. The resulting total radiated energy is substantially different to the arithmetic mean for any substantial range of daily temperature. And of course; it gets much worse if one averages the averages over a month.

The ideal case would be an average rise of 1C which was a uniform rise of 1C everywhere. But it won’t be, and that means some places will rise by more than 1C, and some by less. Exactly what the change for each region is difficult to work out. There is potentially chaotic weather behaviour. But the average increase is not so hard to work out, as its just determined by the balance between energy in and energy out.

So the average is quoted, because that is knowable. Other than that, the general view is greater warming at the poles, and greater warming over land.

Just because a statistic is “knowable” does not make it the appropriate statistic. Again, I ask “Why do the climate scientists use average?” What does adding numbers together and then dividing by the number of numbers tell us in the real world. That’s the important question. Why is average a useful statistic? It cannot predict and it can be the same for many, many numbers groupings. What value does the calculation have?

It isn’t “knowable” in any useful sense — unless you’ve discovered how to integrate temperature over every last square millimeter of the planet over every day continuously for 365 days every year. Do you have all those temperatures? Have you discovered that, John? Do you even have a discrete approximation for that integral? No! I didn’t think so but I thought I’d ask to be sure.

There’s the problem. No matter what you do you have only measurements from some discrete points and no knowledge of what’s going on in-between them. And the number of places for which you have measurements has been on the decrease.

Satellite measurements come a lot closer to what we really need (a lot, lot closer). And they say you’re out to lunch — no warming.

Being out to lunch has its upside though. At least you’ll not go hungry.

Fascinating reading. As far as I’m concerned Julia Gillard was the Prat of 2011.

On a more sombre note, I didn’t know the astronomer Sir Patrick Moore had died, but there it is, I found out on Pointman’s site. He was a great man. I have several of his books including the amusing “Countdown! … or How Nigh Is The End”. I best remember him for his TV commentary when the spacecraft intercepted Halley’s Comet in 1986.

re his sporting prowess, I didn’t think anyone played golf worse than me, but even I didn’t get a double century!

A ‘COSMOS’ magazine article in August 2012 shows how ignorance can prevail in science. It is titled

Drilling discovers ancient Antarctic rain forest.

It goes on,

SYDNEY: Drilling of the seabed off Antarctica has revealed that rain forest grew on the frozen continent 52 million years ago, scientists said, warning it could be ice-free again within decades. The study of sediment cores drilled from the ocean floor off Antarctica’s east coast revealed fossil pollens that had come from a “near-tropical” forest covering the continent in the Eocene period, 34-56 million years ago.

Then,

Kevin Welsh, an Australian scientist who travelled on the 2010 expedition, said analysis of temperature-sensitive molecules in the cores had showed it was “very warm” 52 million years ago, measuring about 20 degrees Celsius (68 degrees Fahrenheit).

followed by,

Welsh said higher levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere were thought to be the major driver of the heat and ice-free conditions on Antarctica, with CO2 estimates of anywhere between 990 to “a couple of thousand” parts per million.

Yet it seems this scientist has never heard of Continental drift.

Up to the 1970s any school child could see that the continents seemed to ‘fit’ like a jigsaw puzzle. But the idea of continents floating around was pooh poohed.

However, later studies of the magnetic polarity in rocks spreading from the sea floor established the theory of drift. It happens only slowly…about 7 to 10 cm a year…but do the maths and it is staggering how far a continent can move in a few million years.

Australia would have been in the south latitudes receiving a milder climate like USA. So it is quite reasonable that Antarctica was further north, joined to Australia, and thus enabled to support a deal of vegetation. THIS would explain the climate difference rather than CO2, unless the climate scientists still believe continents don’t move.

Note the term “near tropical forest,” That infers great warmth yet one could say the same about southern Tasmania’s forests if you allow for a bit of exaggeration.

Continental drift has indirect climate effects as well. Not only does it shift large land masses to a different latitude, but it can also change major ocean currents substantially over a long time.

Consider e.g. If the geologically-active Antarctic peninsula experienced a major volcanic event, resulting in a blocking of the circumpolar currents around that continent. The global climate disruption, over the space of a decade, would probably be more significant than the century and a half of “warming” that we’ve experienced recently.

The closing of straits to major currents will take many centuries if by plate tectonics so nothing “dramatic”.

I may be wrong but I think my main point was missed re’ continental drift.

Cast your mind back to, say, over 50 million years ago. Think of 2 brothers standing where Antarctica joined Australia at that time. One is on the Australian piece and the other is on the Antarctica piece.

The Latitude of the break away point is along the Great Australian Bight. But, at that time the Latitude is more northerly for the Antarctica position c.f. where it is now and Australia is more southerly than where it is now. This places both continents in a more benign climate position much like North America is now.

As the continents drift apart the brother on the Australian piece observes that Australia is heading towards 30′S. This is a Latitude which covers most deserts. Thus, the climate of Australia becomes drier. The MDB which was like a Mississippi River now becomes less well watered. Meantime, the brother standing on the Antarctica piece notices he is heading south and getting colder and icier.

So, the climates for both brothers changes dramatically but this is not due to CO2 or any other factor. It is their positions in relation to the sun, Latitude, and subsequent climate at those positions which is the major factor.

Yet, I never see this huge factor mentioned when referring to climate change even though it is happening under our very nose right now. Australia continues to ‘rocket’ toward New Guinea at 7cm per year.

So in a few million years time the southern states will be very dry at a Latitude of 30′S while Alice Springs and the desert nearby will become rainier as they go further north. This doesn’t need CO2, ocean currents, orbital gyrations and other explanations for climate change in general.

10.9.2. Growth effects
10.9.2.1. The rate of economic growth
…
The impact of climate change would lead to a 0.3% reduction of GDP in 2050. Regional impacts are more pronounced, ranging from -1.0% in developing countries to +0.4% in Australia and Canada. Sectoral results are varied too, with output changes ranging from output of +0.5% for power generation (to meet increased demand to air conditioning) to -0.7% for natural gas (as demand for space heating falls) and rice.

(bold mine)

Of course; that’s based on economic models which are only slightly more reliable than climate models.

I recently (early December) stumbled on The Project and an interview with Julia: http://theprojecttv.com.au/video.htm?movideo_p=39696&movideo_m=252877
Watch from 6:10
The reporter asks are they going to save us money? She doesn’t answer the question.
Then she describes a special button which “doesn’t really make any difference to the temperature of your home…’.
Sounds familiar? Carbon tax in a box?

22 Dec: Xinhua, China: Beijing Temperatures May Plunge to 30-year Low
Temperatures are expected to drop to minus 15 degrees Celsius in urban areas over the weekend.
Beijingers started to feel the freezing weather after a cold spell came in from Siberia on Friday night, Wang Hua, chief forecaster of Beijing Meteorological Observatory said…
“Your hands go numb in just a few minutes. Cameras also work very slowly due to the cold,” said a woman surnamed Zhou, who works on the square…http://english.cri.cn/6909/2012/12/22/191s739887.htm

seasons greetings jo & david, your family and helpers, and all who contribute here. u r a tease, jo, but will wait patiently for your latest revelation!

The original Kyoto Protocol called for greenhouse gas emissions reduction to a level 5% lower than what they were in 1990, hence 95% of the 1990 level, all well intentioned at the time Kyoto was first mooted.

Now, no Country on Earth has reached that target. Oh let me qualify that. UNFCCC divvied up the World into the haves and the have nots Developed (Annex 1) and Non Developed Countries. (Annex 2) Australia is in Annex 1.

There were (figures as of today) 40 Countries in Annex 1 and 152 Countries in Annex 2, and all those Annex 2 Countries had to do was report their emissions, so no 95% target for them.

Those Annex 1 countries had their target set at that 95% of 1990 level.

Annex 2 Countries, (China and India are in Annex 2) well, who cares what they do, all they have do is report their emissions, so no targets for them, and now see why Copenhagen failed to find a replacement for Kyoto. Why would anyone in Annex 2 want to change an already (huh!) legally binding document that is already in their favour.

Needless to say no Country has achieved that target, and probably never will, no matter what they do, as it virtually totally restricts development, and for Annex 1 Countries, it actually means development has to go backwards.

So, somewhere along the way, umm, Copenhagen I think, that always unachievable target of 95% lower than 1990 was changed to, er 108% of 1990 levels, and hey, who ever heard about that subtle little change.

Hmm, 13% higher than the original target.

Now, in a flash of camera bulbs, Dear Leader Kevin signed us up to Kyoto at Bali in 2007, and over that intervening period, his, and later, Julia’s Government drafted Australia’s response to Kyoto.

I was just wondering if anyone can see the flaw in that figure of 108% of 1990 levels.

If you and the rest of the warmists were so damn correct in your science why isn’t the world taking notice? Instead we have another failed lovefest at Doha and the world is ignoring you and your prophesies of gloom.

I’m currently in Dubai where they generate 23GW of power by burning Gas – they don’t give tuppence for your silly AGW ideas. Qatar, where the meeting took place generates 3GW of power for their 2mil population – also 100% from fossil fuels – they don’t give a stuff about your silly ideas as well.

You, Robyn Williams and the ABC need to take optical viagra and have a long, hard look at yourselves!

You’re doing a great job there Janama,
They are very good at throwing insults over there aren’t they?
They also seem to completely lack a sense of humour, which makes reading the comments quite a hilarious experience

Low prices, high costs to slash 2013 CER supply
LONDON, Dec 21 (Reuters Point Carbon) – Rock-bottom prices for U.N. offsets are likely to lead to a dramatic cut in the number of Certified Emissions Reductions (CERs) issued in 2013, according to analysts, as market prices shrink towards the costs associated with getting the credits awarded.http://www.pointcarbon.com/news/1.2111643?&ref=searchlist

what a beat-up of Poland this piece is. if only our Govt had the b*lls to stand up to the EU CAGW mafia:

21 Dec: Der Spiegel:Joel Stonington: ‘Coal-aholics’
Poland Wages War on Efforts to Save the Climate
Poland is addicted to coal…
On Monday, coal-dependent Poland continued its virtually solitary opposition to a widely-supported — and badly needed – short-term fix for Europe’s carbon-trading system, the continent’s flagship policy in the fight against global warming. Such obstreperousness, however, has not led to Poland’s being internationally ostracized. On the contrary, even as the country helped block Europe’s ability to present a unified front at the recent climate change conference in Doha, Poland was chosen to host the next conference in 2013.
It is a decision which seems destined to make next year’s conference, aimed at fashioning a global pact to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, just as unsuccessful as in years past…

The pessimism is born of Poland’s ongoing addiction to coal – and of the government’s own interest in the status quo…
Poland is the 10th largest consumer of coal in the world and produces 92 percent of its electricity from coal, according to the World Coal Association. And despite EU targets for curbing greenhouse gas emissions, Poland is pressing forward with plans replace old coal plants with massive new ones.
That doesn’t mesh well with Europe’s CO2 emissions reduction plans…

This year, Poland has twice vetoed new greenhouse gas reduction targets. And while those vetoes may ultimately be circumvented, Poland is also standing in the way of making the European Emissions Trading System work. The system involves gradually lowering the number of carbon emissions certificates on the open market, thus slowly making it more expensive to release carbon into the atmosphere. But the market is currently glutted, leading to a price-per-ton of emissions of just €7.13 on Friday, well below where it needs to be to act as a disincentive.
There is a united front across Europe — one that includes not just leading European politicians, but also large utility companies and oil firms including Shell — which agrees that a fix is necessary…

On Monday, Poland claimed that the proposal to amend the ETS, known as “back-loading,” would cost the country more than €1 billion over the next seven years, according to the news site European Voice. It is a statement consistent with Poland’s outspoken stance that the ETS should not be tampered with, even as the need to fix the system has become more urgent…
“The Emissions Trading System is working as a tax with the highest burden on countries like Poland,” Polish Environment Minister Marcin Korolec said in an interview with SPIEGEL ONLINE. “We are already at the limit of what our industry and citizens can pay.”…

And when it comes to developing renewable energies, there is frustration in the environmental community. Many say that Poland’s stance on renewable energy seems to come more from ideological issues than from a studying long-term economics and viability…
Coal, in short, appears to be Warsaw’s only strategy when it comes to energy. And the Polish government is moving forward with major investments in coal-fired power plants, planning to spend €24 billion in the energy sector over the next eight years with much of that earmarked for 11,300 megawatts of new coal plants — an amount equivalent to Israel’s peak electricity usage during a heat wave…http://www.spiegel.de/international/europe/poland-stands-in-the-way-of-european-global-warming-efforts-a-874344.html

planning to spend €24 billion in the energy sector over the next eight years with much of that earmarked for 11,300 megawatts of new coal plants — an amount equivalent to Israel’s peak electricity usage during a heat wave…

what kind of a statement is that?? Poland has 4 times the population of Israel (28mil – 7mil) and is a cold northern European country that needs to keep it’s residents warm in freezing winters. Go for it Poland I say!

23 Dec: Saudi Gazette: Syed Rashid Husain: World on brink of losing battle vs. global warming
Despite the growing awareness about environmental issues and the need to control pollution, global coal demand, fueled by economic and strategic compulsions, seems surging and surging – and at a rapid pace.
This reemergence of coal, on the global energy horizon, is to a very great extent owed to China. “Global Coal Risk Assessment: Data Analysis and Market Research, “ released on Nov. 20, estimated there are currently 1,199 proposed coal plants in 59 countries. However, People’s Republic of China is the world’s largest consumer of coal, using more coal each year than the United States, the European Union, and Japan combined. Coal power has been the dominant source of energy used to fuel the rapid economic development of China over the past two decades…

China’s coal production too has more than doubled since 1990, from one billion tons then to 2.72 billion in 2008…
In December 2011, China’s Shenhua Group announced plans to build the largest coal-fired power station in Asia over a period of five years.
China’s biggest coal company and officials in the Guangxi Zhuang Autonomous Region agreed to build the 8-gigawatt thermal plant, in the southern port city of Beihai.
Current estimates of the rate at which new coal plants are being built in China vary widely. According to Greg Boyce, CEO of Peabody Energy, China is building 2 gigawatts (2,000 megawatts) of new power plants, mostly coal fired, per week. However, actual statistics gathered by the US Energy Information Administration (EIA) indicate that the pace of building is significantly slower than that…

Chinese coal consumption is now forecasted to account for more than half of global demand by 2014, displacing the United States as the biggest coal polluter on per-capita basis. The IEA sees China’s coal demand increasing by an average of 3.7 per cent per year to 3,190 million tons of coal equivalent by 2017.
And with coal back on the global energy circuit, it is now set to surpass oil as the world’s top fuel within a decade, driven by growth in emerging market. China and others including India are already on the list, as the major consumers. Now energy-starved Pakistan, also seems evaluating seriously to exploit its huge Thar coal reserves to generate power and meet the burgeoning need of a rapidly growing population. The deposits – 6th largest in the world – were discovered in 1991 by Geological Survey of Pakistan (GSP) and the United State Agency for International Development…

And the allure to use coal now is so tempting that even Europe is finding it hard to cut its use despite pollution concerns, the International Energy Agency now says in its recent Medium-Term Coal Market Report. As per the report, global coal demand will rise 2.6 percent annually over the next six years and challenge oil as the top energy source. The report said that coal usage is to rise in all regions except the US, where cheap natural gas has dampened (coal) demand.
The IEA report on coal thus found that due to this new-found love with coal generated power plants, countries which had committed themselves to reducing carbon emissions, are now finding it difficult to resist the temptation to use coal.
***A number of European countries have seen their use of coal for electricity consumption jump at the beginning of this year, including by 65 percent in Spain, 35 percent in Britain and 8 per cent in Germany…

“Thanks to abundant supplies and insatiable demand for power from emerging markets, coal met nearly half of the rise in global energy demand during the first decade of the 21st century,” said Maria van der Hoeven, the Executive Director of the Paris-based International Energy Agency.
Economic growth is expected to push up further coal’s share of the global energy mix, “and if no changes are made to current policies, coal will catch oil within a decade,” she said in a statement.
The latest IEA projections see coal consumption nearly catching oil consumption in four years time, rising to 4.32 billion tons of oil equivalent in 2017 against 4.4 billion tons for oil…

The world is on the very verge of losing this very important battle against global heating. The IEA also doesn’t foresee, over the next five years, any widespread take-up of technology to capture and store underground carbon emissions from burning coal. And the IEA top boss, Van der Hoeven warned that unless there is technological progress or a replication of the US experience (of tapping shale resources) “…coal faces the risk of a potential climate policy backlash.”
The energy world seems heading to a ‘black’ future!http://www.saudigazette.com.sa/index.cfm?method=home.regcon&contentid=20121223146837

This is what happens when the government subsidizes useless “green energy”. Suddenly it becomes apparent that using the “green energy” is definitely going to leave your country in the dark and except for the rich, guilt-ridden Americans, Australians and a few European countries, governments have decided living in the dark is not the way to go. Coal is the fastest and easiest way to general electricity. If you need power NOW, coal is the way to go. If you instill an irrational fear of fracking in your population, coal is the way to go. Had there been any actual concern over producing viable alternatives to coal, perhaps this could have been avoided. I say “perhaps”. I just think of the billions wasted on wind and solar and wonder what we could have developed if we hadn’t pandered to the greens and wasted money on worthless turbines and panels.
Of course, at this point, countries are going to be pointing fingers and saying everyone else is at fault. Politics……

The IPCC was formed in 1988. Since that time, a generation has grown up exposed to the relentless tide of CAGW propaganda. Some of the youngest probably think that a warm summer somewhere, or maybe a hurricane extra in a given year for example is evidence that the global climate’s changing – and of course it’s all due to mankind’s influence.
I suggest that it’s time to stop looking at tiny changes in thermometer readings and look at historical records.
So – maybe interested readers might like try for example ‘The Weather of Britain’, by Robin Stirling ISBN 1-900357-06-2.
Headings include ‘Somes Days Bring Deluges’ (very apt here in the UK at the moment), ‘Sensational Days’, ‘Twisters’, ‘Sensational Months and Seasons’and more.
Are there any other books like this which visitors to this site can recommend?
Best wishes for Christmas and the New Year Jo – keep up the good work!

There is very interesting article on WUWT by Lord Monckton. Our resident troll John Brookes left one of his typical argumentum ad ignorantiam comments. Typical because, unable to mount any counter argument, or indeed unable to attempt to understand the logic, JB has the nerve to call it “misinformation”. “Overblown and pretentious, but all in all a very entertaining piece of misinformation. But one would expect no less from Mr Monckton.” he says. Obviously, JB considers himself on of the “Anointed” defined by Thomas Sowell.